Scope of application of Article 170(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 9229, Dec. 30, 1978)

The provisions of Article 170 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (the Presidential Decree No. 9229, Dec. 30, 1978) shall not apply to cases where a person who has transferred assets referred to in each subparagraph of Article 23 (1) of the Income Tax Act (the Presidential Decree No. 3098, Dec. 5, 1978) fails to make the return on the transfer of assets, and where a person who has received a decision on the transfer income less the acquisition value assessed as the standard market price at the time of the transfer of the assets at the time of the transfer of the assets, and the transfer income deduction amount, fails to make the final return on the transfer income

Article 23 of the former Income Tax Act (Act No. 3098 of Dec. 5, 1978), Article 60 of the former Income Tax Act (Act No. 3098 of Dec. 5, 1978), Article 95 of the former Income Tax Act (Act No. 3098 of Dec. 5, 1978), Article 100 of the former Income Tax Act (Act No. 3098 of Dec. 5, 1978), Article 115 of the former Enforcement Decree of Income Tax Act (Act No. 9229 of Dec. 30, 1978), Article 170 of the former Enforcement Decree of Income Tax Act (Act No. 9229 of Dec. 30, 1978)

Plaintiff

The director of Busan District Office

Daegu High Court Decision 82Gu268 delivered on July 12, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In light of the provisions of Articles 95, 100, 23 (4), and 60 of the Income Tax Act and Article 170 (3) and (4), and Article 115 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (Presidential Decree No. 9229 of December 30, 1978), where the actual transaction price is unclear because the transferor of assets fails to make a preliminary return of transfer margin or a final return of tax base, the transfer income tax shall be imposed by calculating the transfer price and the amount calculated by deducting the acquisition price and the deduction amount from the transfer price as the standard market price, instead of the actual transaction price, as the transfer price and the actual transaction price were calculated as the transfer income, and it is not clear that the Plaintiff purchased from Nonparty 1 on January 25, 1978 the Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (resident omitted) large 101 square meters and assessed the transfer income tax based on the standard market price and the net market price at the time of transfer, and thus, the provisions of each subparagraph 1 of the Income Tax Act and taxation of this case are legitimate.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)